MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

JOHN
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff
Gregory Isaac King alleges that Defendant Bruce Reiser,
former Warden of the Minnesota Correction Facility-Faribault
and current Deputy Commissioner of the Minnesota Department
of Corrections, denied King the ability to be a supportive
husband as required by his religion and also denied King
access to clergy during his recent incarceration. (Compl. at
1, Mar. 20, 2017, Docket No. 1; R&R at 1, June 20, 2017,
Docket No. 12.) King also alleges that since he was released
from prison, Reiser has attempted multiple times to take
King's life and has taken away King's civil rights in
an abusive and restrictive way. (Compl. at 1.). In a
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), United States Magistrate Judge Tony
N. Leung found that King failed to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. (R&R at 2-3.) After the R&R
was filed, King submitted a number of documents to the Court,
none of which specifically objects to the reasoning in the
R&R. King also filed two documents styled as motions: the
first requests a “hold on dismissal, ” (Mot. for
Hold on Dismissal, June 20, 2017, Docket No. 14) and includes
language generally objecting to dismissal of the case; the
second requests that Defendant and his “gang”
stop following King's family at home, work, and around
the community, (Mot. to Stop Showing Up at Residences
(“Mot. for Inj.”), June 26, 2017, Docket No. 15).
Because King has failed to state a cognizable claim for
relief, the Court will adopt the R&R, overrule King's
objections, and deny King's motion for preliminary
injunction as moot.

ANALYSIS

I.
THE R&R

Upon
the filing of an R&R by a Magistrate Judge, “a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The
district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). When a party fails to raise specific
objections, the District Court is relieved of the obligation
to review the report de novo; however, the district
court is still under an obligation to evaluate whether the
Magistrate's report is correct under clear error review.
Bui v. U.S. Attorney's Office, No. 15-2001, 2015
WL 6758142, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 5, 2015).

The
Court construes King's “motion for hold on
dismissal” as an objection to the R&R's
recommendation that the Court dismiss the action. However, in
the motion, King does not provide any specific basis for
rejecting the reasoning in the R&R. Furthermore, King
does not respond specifically to the reasoning in the R&R
in any of his other filings. Thus, the Court evaluates
whether the Magistrate Judge clearly erred.

Pro
se complaints are to “be given liberal
construction . . . in a way that permits the layperson's
claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915
(8th Cir. 2004). However, King's factual
allegations must be sufficient to “raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570
(2007).

The
Court has reviewed the record in its entirety and finds no
error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the
complaint be dismissed because King has “fail[ed] to
state a claim on which relief may be granted” as
required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for a
plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis.[1]

While
King maintains that his religious rights were violated, he
gives little detail about actual actions taken by Reiser that
impermissibly violated his rights. (R&R at 1.) The
complaint also does not indicate what relief King is seeking,
as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3). (Id. at 1-2.)
In the filings submitted since the R&R, King requests a
variety of relief that is unrelated to the claims in his
complaint and relies on facially implausible factual
assertions. For instance, King asks the Court to release six
of his family members being held hostage in a room at the
Hennepin County Library when there is no evidence of any
hostage situation, (Mem. (“Second July 6 Mem.”)
at 1, July 6, 2017, Docket No. 21); he also requests
“18.1 million [dollars] weekly for 85 weeks, ”
equal to the length of time he was incarcerated, and the
“gross total of 2.5 billion per victim which is a total
of 21 victims estimated” with no reference to who the
victims are or how he sustained 18.1 million dollars in
damages while incarcerated, (Request at 1-2, May 22, 2017,
Docket No. 8); finally, he makes multiple requests that the
court enjoin Reiser and his “gang” from
“abusing” and “raping” King's
family while providing no plausible allegations of abuse or
rape. (Mot. for Inj. at 1; Second July 6 Mem. at 1; Mem. at
1, July 6, 2017, Docket No. 22.) Because these requests are
divorced from the allegations in the complaint and are based
on implausible or nonexistent factual allegations, King fails
to state a cognizable request for relief.

Further,
while the Court lacks sufficient information to definitively
decide the issue, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that dismissal would likely be appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because Reiser is likely immune
from claims for monetary relief as a state correctional
officer sued in his official capacity. Thomas v. St.
Louis Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 447 F.3d 1082, 1084
(8th Cir. 2006); (R&R at 2). Finally, King has
not alleged why this Court has jurisdiction over this
complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). (R&R at 2.)

For all
of these reasons, the Court will adopt the R&R and
dismiss the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II.
KING'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

King
moves to enjoin Reiser and his “gang” from
“showing up at residences and work and following [King
and others] when they are about the community, ” (Mot.
for Inj. at 1), which the court construes as a motion for
preliminary injunction. Because the Court will adopt the
R&R dismissing this action under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court will deny King's motion as
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.